Sheasley v. Haney

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Sheasley v. Haney

166 A. 561, 311 Pa. 144, 1933 Pa. LEXIS 502

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 22, 1933

DocketAppeals, 58 and 59

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 A. 561 (Sheasley v. Haney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sheasley v. Haney, 166 A. 561, 311 Pa. 144, 1933 Pa. LEXIS 502 (Pa. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This action was brought by the plaintiffs to recover damages on account of injuries sustained by the wife-plaintiff when the automobile in which she was riding with defendant Haney collided with the automobile driven by defendant Rising. The jury awarded $750 *145 to James T. Sheasley and $3,500 to Mrs. Sheasley against Charles D. Haney, finding defendant Rising not guilty of negligence. Defendant Haney appeals from the refusal of a new trial and judgment non obstante veredicto. An examination of the record convinces us that the case was carefully tried; the various questions which arose as to the alleged negligence of the respective defendants were for the jury, and were laid before them in a full and correct charge in which we find no cause for reversal.

The judgments are affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

This action was brought by the plaintiffs to recover damages on account of injuries sustained by the wife-plaintiff when the automobile in which she was riding with defendant Haney collided with the automobile driven by defendant Rising. The jury awarded $750 *145 to James T. Sheasley and $3,500 to Mrs. Sheasley against Charles D. Haney, finding defendant Rising not guilty of negligence. Defendant Haney appeals from the refusal of a new trial and judgment non obstante veredicto. An examination of the record convinces us that the case was carefully tried; the various questions which arose as to the alleged negligence of the respective defendants were for the jury, and were laid before them in a full and correct charge in which we find no cause for reversal.

The judgments are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A. 561, 311 Pa. 144, 1933 Pa. LEXIS 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheasley-v-haney-pa-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack